Laffare v. Knight

• Decision Date: 13 March 1907
• Citation: 101 S.W. 1034
• Parties: LAFFARE v. KNIGHT et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

101 S.W. 1034

LAFFARE v. KNIGHT et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1907.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Milan County; J. C. Scott, Judge.

Action by Charles A. Laffare against T. J. Knight and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

With the additional statement that the plaintiff dismissed the suit as against T. J. Knight and W. M. Stutts, and that the land was deeded to J. F. Knight in 1879, the nature and result of this suit are shown by the trial court's conclusions of fact and law, which are as follows:

"Conclusions of Fact.

"(1) That this suit was instituted herein by the plaintiff against T. J. Knight on the _____ day of December, 1903, to foreclose a vendor's lien on the land described in plaintiff's petition.

"(2) I find that on March 8, 1904, the plaintiff filed herein his first amended original petition, in which George N. Knight and W. M. Stutts were made parties defendant, and that by said amendment the cause of action was changed to one of trespass to try title against all of said defendants, and for the recovery of the entire tract of land in controversy.

"(3) I find that at a former term of this court it was made to appear that said defendant George N. Knight was a non compos mentis, and that, upon a consideration of that fact, the court appointed Monta J. Moore and W. A. Morrison as guardians ad litem to represent her in this suit.

"(4) I find that the land in controversy was the community property of J. F. Knight and his first wife, and that the said George N. Knight was the sole surviving heir of the first wife of said J. F. Knight, and that her mother died while she was a small child, and that her father has subsequently died.

"(5) I find that afterwards her father, J. F. Knight married a second time, and by said second marriage raised several children, among them T. J. Knight, and that said T. J. Knight was a half-brother of the defendant George N. Knight.

"(6) I find that on April 22, 1899, said J. F. Knight, the father of George N. Knight, and his second wife, conveyed the land by deed of that date to one C. F. Carr, and that part of the consideration was three promissory notes.

"(7) I find that on February 5, 1900, said C. F. Carr conveyed the land to said T. J. Knight, and that part of the consideration was a cancellation of the three notes above mentioned.

"(8) I find that on February 8, 1901, said T. J. Knight and his wife conveyed said land to one T. J. Brown.

"(9) I find that by deed dated October 30, 1901, the said T. J. Brown reconveyed said land to said T. J. Knight, and that the recited consideration is the note for $240 originally sued on in this case by the plaintiff.

"(10) I find, further, that by quitclaim deed dated March 1, 1904, the said T. J. Brown quitclaimed said land to the plaintiff Charles A. Laffare.

"(11) I further find that on or about the 7th day of January, 1902, the said T. J. Brown transferred the said $240 note to the plaintiff, and that the same was indorsed without recourse, and that, unless said quitclaim deed conveys said Brown's superior title to the land, there was never any effort on the part of said Brown to convey his superior right as a vendor, if any he had, to the plaintiff.

"(12) I further find that it was well known in the community where the land is situated that the said defendant George N. Knight claims an interest in the land, and that any sort of inquiry in that neighborhood would have developed that fact.

"(13) I further find that the plaintiff purchased said note from said T. J. Brown and paid therefor the sum of $240, and that at the time of said purchase one W. M. Wells was his agent, and was instructed by him to invest his money in this note, and that said agent informed the plaintiff that it was a good and valid note, but I also find that at such time said W. M. Wells had notice of the defendant George N. Knight's claim and interest in this tract of land.

"(14) I further find that there is no evidence in the record tending to show that any part of the parties to the above enumerated conveyances ever paid any consideration whatever for said land, with the exception of the amount paid by the plaintiff for said note, and that such sum is the only amount ever paid by any person during all of the aforementioned transactions.

"(15) I further find that the value of said land is $450.

"(16) I further find that at the time the plaintiff purchased said note, and that at the time he took said quitclaim deed, he made no inquiries as to the title to this land, and that he did not visit the same, and that he was not deceived nor misled by any person in reference to the title to the same.

"(17) I further find that the plaintiff did...